- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The reason many liberals think the Constitution is an obsolete rag, written by white male slaveholders and an obstruction to social progress is the fact that it consists of absolutes that attempt to account for human individual variability without restricting individual freedom. That document isn't supposed to leave much wiggle room for situational ethics, but liberal justices have found creative ways to find exceptions. Given enough unobstructed effort, liberals will make our Constitution into just so much decoration.
Amazingly, I've heard that exact same definition of conservatives. I do not agree with it. Its value is in it lends itself to getting on the radio or TV and yell at each other.
To keep things balanced here conservative means slow to judge and make change always following the rule of law while liberals want immediate change to satisfy the moment with no regard for such trivial nonsense as .laws. That with some acid was the oldest defintion I could find in the pre PC dictionaries. As the firs post i think it was mentioned the European definitions are something else again. In the US under present definition.
Another trait I noticed. If they come out strong for a Republican candidate that's their chosen candidate from the right wing of the left. Also the first one they will dump after primaries.
It follows if they are hot about Trumpet they have other plans than your, to them, meaningless definitions of evil and greater good. One is defeat a weakness in their own group (Hillary) once and for while still controlling from the right wing of the left. Trump is after all nothing more than a socialist corporatist as opposed to Hillary an embarassing socialst statist. Sometimes better to sit out one cycle and let the heat die down. Either way the party is served. Statist, Corporatist and of course union leaders are their three main divisions. Remember their goal is not owning your land or your bank account they want to own you.
These people are incredibly honest (proof against blackmail or bribery - we have a very good business reputation with the CDC in the Carib because of this), incredibly intelligent and well read, charismatic, scintillating conversationalists, well dressed, and have a great sense of humor (including about themselves).
What are their standards? Several of them are Christian, and they believe in the Christian principle of giving to the poor and sometimes turning the other cheek. They are willing to give to the poor themselves in equal proportion to the degree that they latch onto my income and force me to do this too. The ones who are atheists have about the same ethos as the Christian liberals, but without the religious underpinning. I agree with these liberal friends on almost all social issues.
But the difference is that they do think that it is moral to force me to live by their standards. They think that if They give to the poor, so that poor people do not have to inconvenience themselves with jobs, that it is OK for them to make me do the same. Were the shoe on the other foot, and I were King, I would not consider that my not giving to the poor meant that they were forbidden to do so themselves. (This goes back to my comment on the thread about the clerk not signing marriage licenses: the difference between force and permission.) They would certainly be welcome to give their own income to the poor, according to whatever parameters they designed.
As I have said before, liberalism and even socialism and communism 'nest' well inside a freedom based society; the reverse is not true.
Jan
Except for the forcing you to give to the poor. It's because of 'Force' we have poor people and those that would help, can not because that which we might have help With, has been taken from us.
I myself, do not fit neatly into any category.
Your 'Liberal's' do not sound like the one's I have met. If anything, they've done more taking and are what I call anti-lectual and not exibit the profound honesty I prefer.
They are really excellent people, but their premises are different than mine. Logically, I should be able to demonstrate to them that their views are inaccurate, but they do not want to go there. One cannot 'drive them' to changing their beliefs, though I can occasionally chip away at individual points. I think that the most I can do to influence their worldview is to be open about my beliefs and make them realize that they cannot pigeonhole the 'Randists' in a virtual oubliette...since they would have to include me (and they do not want to do that).
Jan
It's inevitable some will stick and seep over into the next conversation.
Except here of course. Jan brought up some good points Your last sentence is another good point.
The sentence before that rated a thumbs up.
I've noted four or five key points and leads followed up two so far and came up with two more intentionally misdefined words. Grist for the mill and wood for the fire.
I have mentally referred to it as 'a different set of premises' but I like the Framing The Reference term. Doing so also necessitates not looking too closely at things like the percentage of human suffering that has been alleviated by technology invented for profit vs the amount that has been alleviated by charitable efforts.
I am going to a party with them tonight. There may be one other person there who is a Randist - but a closet Randist. There will be fascinating conversation and much eating of large red boiled bugs.
Jan
Was your first sentence a quote from someone else?
Before I read the rest of your post, I assumed "Liberal" was being used in the original (European) meaning of supporting freedom, not the American meaning.
Same is true about many other words. Our language is becoming gibberish for that reason.
Imposing rules on others based on the ethical or moral tenets YOU (they) believe in.
Same diff; mirror image.
Then see the transistion over the years to the new definitions and finally the see the move of the Republicans into the same socialist camp and left wing camp as the Democrats. One Statist the other Corporatist. Both believing in government control of citizens. One the left wing of the left and the other the right wing of the left. Finally both in an unadvertised coalition of the left.
now the Coalition of the left is liberal enough to hasten the final incremental move to full control. It's been a hundred years in the making. They are in a big time rush.
But suspicion has grown within the public who no longer trusts the Government so we'll call that coalition the Government Party.
Their right wing is used to deflect criticism but really does nothing practical to slow the course.
Once they reach their goal the original conservative definition takes hold again and they slow down as a full fledged fascist socialist state opposed to any change once again.
It's all in the definitions and how they are applied and when. There is a name for this put forward I think by Chomsky. ah yes State Capitalism where what the state doesn't own it controls.
Think about that for a while. Then refer to the comment by profChuck on situational ethics
The key is they are NOT two separate parties but a cooperative coalition.
Also remember their is scant difference between international socialism whee the state owns everything and national socialism where the state controls everything. Germany WWII was socialist.
Sweden, Norway, New Zealand are NOT socialist but hampered capitalist nations. Citizens still in charge.
It's all in the definitions but only if you accept their version.
For example, let's agree that stealing is wrong. Now, if I steal your pencil or your car, it's effectively the same act...differing magnitudes do not ameliorate guilt. Let's take that a step further: if I steal your car because I'm going to sell it to a chop shop, or I steal your car because it's an emergency and I needed to get my wife to the hospital, the common thread is that I would have stolen your car, and you would have been deprived of your property. To my way of thinking, it's as simple as that. But not to a liberal. To liberals there are varying degrees of culpability according to the thief's circumstances AND the question arises whether or not you can afford the loss, subjects that are in fact immaterial to the discussion.
They also call themselves "progressive" which, apparently, means supporting government programs for all aspects of health care, redistributing wealth, protecting the environment and making sure everyone is nice to one another. None of which has anything in common with socialism, fascism or communism. It also, somehow, means they are independent, free and are the decision makers when it comes to their health care and their ability to earn a living. They also believe their lives are private and, even if the government knows everything about them, they have nothing to hide and anyone who thinks the government would do anything "bad" with the information is crazy.
These include graduates of MIT, Fordham, Yale and Harvard. Oy vey.
So in my humble opinion it is the corrupt bankrupt society that has no morals or standards, not just liberal or conservatives. It is time to withdraw from that society and live only for ones self.
I think it's a subset of other human rights.
That would explain why Liberals today are so conservative once in power.
But I'm perplexed as to what system of Morals and Values the modern liberal subscribes. They certainly have no problem with changing from day to day in actions and definitions. One group the limousine liberals seem to have the 'don't you wish you were rich enough to be a liberal' attitude. When it comes to morals and standards they are not in evidence except to cast negatives on others by looking at themselves to find the description. I don't see anything but live for the moment if it feels good do it.As James Carville once asked the Democrats "Where is the Sacred Ground?" he received no answer.
I'll leave it at that except to note in the larger sense liberal and left wing and socialist are synonymous changed only by the addition of fascist in nature.
I also consider Republicans and Democrats to be two parts of one party the left and right wing of the left both believing in government control over citizens and both anti-Constitution which they replaced.de facto and de jure.
That's the start point. Let loose the dogs of discussion.
Indeed. This whole thing is an artifice to get people elected.
And those are not my values.